Exempts guardianship motions filed under article 81 of the mental hygiene law by a fiduciary, court evaluator, guardian ad litem, court-appointed attorney or by the court examiner from the required filing fee.
Summary
This bill amends section 8020 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules to create additional filing-fee exemptions in Supreme Court and County Court practice. Under current law, county clerks may charge fees for placing a cause on the calendar, for requests for judicial intervention in certain actions, and for filing motions or cross-motions. The bill preserves those general fees but adds two express exemptions from the $45 motion or cross-motion filing fee: motions seeking leave to proceed as a poor person, and motions filed in Article 81 guardianship matters by specified court participants.
The Article 81 exemption applies to motions filed by a fiduciary, court evaluator, guardian ad litem, court-appointed attorney, or court examiner. The bill would take effect immediately and would therefore apply as soon as enacted, reducing or eliminating filing costs for those categories of motions in guardianship proceedings and for indigent litigants seeking poor-person status.
Impact
The bill would amend the CPLR fee schedule governing county clerk charges in Supreme Court and County Court, narrowing the circumstances in which motion and cross-motion filing fees may be collected. In practice, it would reduce costs in Article 81 guardianship cases under the Mental Hygiene Law and in motions for poor-person relief, affecting county clerks’ fee collection and lowering expenses for guardianship participants and indigent litigants. It does not change substantive guardianship standards, but it does alter court administration and access-to-justice-related filing requirements.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or recorded vote information was provided, so there is no documented debate or formal sentiment history to assess. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears aimed at easing financial burdens in guardianship and indigency-related filings, which suggests an access-to-courts rationale and likely support from advocates for vulnerable litigants. There is no evidence in the provided materials of opposition, amendment controversy, or divided voting.
Contention
The main policy issue is whether filing-fee exemptions should be expanded for Article 81 guardianship motions and poor-person applications. Supporters would likely emphasize access to justice, reduced barriers for court-appointed professionals and parties involved in guardianship matters, and the limited scope of the exemption. Potential concerns, if raised, would center on reduced county clerk revenue and whether fee exemptions should be extended beyond the specifically listed participants and motion types. No specific opposing stakeholders or objections are identified in the provided record.
Exempts guardianship motions filed under article 81 of the mental hygiene law by a fiduciary, court evaluator, guardian ad litem, court-appointed attorney or by the court examiner from the required filing fee.
Provides that court records in a proceeding under articles 77, 78 and 81 of the mental hygiene law shall not be perused, examined, disclosed, taken or copied by any other person than a party, the attorney or counsel of a party, the guardian, the court evaluator or the court examiner except by order of the court.
Provides that court records in a proceeding under articles 77, 78 and 81 of the mental hygiene law shall not be perused, examined, disclosed, taken or copied by any other person than a party, the attorney or counsel of a party, the guardian, the court evaluator or the court examiner except by order of the court.